On March 16, US President Donald Trump signed the Taiwan Travel Act into law. The act allows all US military and government officials to travel to Taiwan and visit its government, and it represents the US Congress’ first legal interpretation of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) since it was enacted 39 years ago.
The TRA stipulates that the US should “maintain the capacity ... to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, social or economic system of the people on Taiwan,” but what constitutes such danger and whether the US should interfere is at the discretion of US president; Taiwan’s government and people cannot take the initiative.
For decades, China has threatened Taiwan via missile tests, its “Anti-Secession” Law, declaring an air defense identification zone, dispatching fighter jets to encircle the nation, infiltrating it, stealing confidential data and undermining Taiwanese sovereignty whenever it could.
These actions alarmed the public, but US presidents have done nothing, with the exception of sending an aircraft carrier during the 1996 Taiwan Strait Crisis.
The US Congress believed this was the result of a lack of direct communication between senior US and Taiwanese officials, and that a law was needed to authorize US national security officials, military officers and administration officials to visit Taiwan for discussion whenever necessary, while also allowing high-ranking Taiwanese government officials to visit the US and meet their counterparts in the Department of State and other agencies.
To prevent awkward incidents, such as former Taiwanese president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) receiving a US envoy in pajamas to protest his treatment during a transit stop in Honolulu on the way to Costa Rica in 1994, the Taiwan Travel Act stipulates that US departments must receive high-level Taiwanese officials “under conditions which demonstrate appropriate respect for the dignity of such officials.”
The preamble to the Taiwan Travel Act says the TRA has never prohibited exchanges between senior US and Taiwanese officials, and that relations “have suffered from insufficient high-level communication due to the self-imposed restrictions.”
Moreover, while the US recognizes that there is “one China,” the TRA does not contravene the principle of absolute territorial sovereignty in international law, nor does it contravene the Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States or the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations adopted by the UN General Assembly, because Taiwan is not part of China.
Nevertheless, while the Taiwan Travel Act refers to Taiwan as “country,” it does not recognize Taiwan or the Republic of China as an independent state.
Although the TRA stipulates that Taiwan should be treated as a country in US law, in international law Taiwan is only a temporary international de facto entity. A decision to become an independent nation should be decided by the public.
According to the TRA, the US is legally required to preserve and enhance the rights of all Taiwanese, including the right to self-determination and establishing an independent nation.
The binding power of the Taiwan Travel Act is even stronger: Every 180 days, “the Secretary of State shall submit to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives a report on travel by United States executive branch officials to Taiwan,” which expands Congress’ rights to be involved in Taiwan’s defense.
Chris Huang is a professor at National Tsing Hua University’s Institute of Law for Science and Technology.
Translated by Chang Ho-ming
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with